Posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Concerning cancer research, you might find the links in the article under "information theory and molecular biology" to be quite interesting. This is a case where science has reached beyond the physio-chemical to mathematics (information theory) for cancer research.
Moreover, when science - under the rule of methodological naturalism - goes into every investigation with the bias "Nature did it" it risks the same things that would result from a "God did it" bias: stopping the investigation at certain boundaries, dismissing evidence or alternative theory and therefore arriving at a faulty or incomplete conclusion.
IOW, "Nature did it" is just as problematic as "God did it". Science needs to return to absolute neutrality on all ideologies.
Thank you for sharing your views! But truly, I don't think you need to worry about your great-great-grandchild herding sheep. Intelligent Design is the object of a considerable amount of "spin" - it is not what it is made out to be.
Thank you so much for letting me know! I look forward to any comments you may have!
Thanks for sharing your views!
Thanks for bumping by!
Truly the Intelligent Design hypothesis is an assault on methodological naturalism. I'm in complete accord with that mission. "Nature did it" is just as problematic a prejudice in science as "God did it".
And I also agree with the assertion that objective truth cannot be obtained from within space/time. Everything "in" space/time is relative per se.
But that subject was hashed out pretty thoroughly already on another research thread: Freeper Investigation What kinds of Knowledge exist, and how certain are the various types
Thank you so much for the clarification!
And thank you for the insights on Lipton!!!
Thank you so much for the encouragements and the bump!
What a magnificient essay-post, betty boop! Thank you so very much!
Count me in. I just think you have to differentiate the parameters around what counts as intelligent design better. More later, after some winks.
you: She doesn't believe that any more than you or I believe in the Easter Bunny. She wasn't being a straighted at all.
Also, personal attacks - like hostility and bitterness - are usually hurled by the losing side in forum debate. The one winning the debate has no need.
IMHO, the tone of the posts throughout this thread is the single best indicator of the strength of the arguments to a casual Lurker.
Thank you for the book recommendations! I haven't gone looking for Wachterhauser's theory, but probably will do so in the morning.
Wonderful! I look forward to reading your contributions!
Truly the Intelligent Design hypothesis is an assault on methodological naturalism. I'm in complete accord with that mission. "Nature did it" is just as problematic a prejudice in science as "God did it".Wait - then how could you have written this in your thread starter?
Most importantly, Intelligent Design does not specify, identify or personify the designer, the intelligent cause. The designer could be any volitional entity including God, collective consciousness, or aliens.
Significantly, the intelligent cause could be an emergent property from naturalistic causes which is the mainstream materialistic explanation for intelligence.
If the liberal correspondent understands this point, the notion that intelligent design = creationism = conservatism has been successfully debunked since mainstream science could hardly be labeled “conservative” politically speaking.
Conversely, if the Intelligent Design hypothesis specified the designer as God, it would indeed be theology and thus, not a subject to be raised in publicly funded education, etc.
Of a truth, the intelligent design hypothesis is theologically and ideologically neutral, despite the liberal correspondent’s attempts to characterize it otherwise.
The prime factor in evolution is natural selection.
What puzzles me about NS is the hint of intelligence
in such a process. And if so, at what stage of evolution
did intelligence appear? Surely, the first life forms
couldn't be considered intelligent, but there was a
"will to live" or exist.
The sudden appearance of the the first life forms seem
to me to be on a par with the 'Big Bang." Everything
starts from there. That's the rub isn't it.?
Personally, I call that rub ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.